Help! Stud.io is a mess and PartDesigner is janky! What do I do?

[Violet Barrett]

Hey there!

I'm Violet, otherwise known as vootcaboot or (sometimes) weedvampires. I currently manage a number of packs of models for Bricklink Stud.io on behalf of the Bionicle community, mainly involving fan-created models originally designed for 3d printing, but I was also the last to update a pack of official Lego models for Bionicle and other constraction themes known as the Biopack. However, the problem is the fact that, well... Stud.io is a mess! I know that LDraw and Lego CAD, in general, has a long history of being janky, but this makes it difficult to work with models... especially seeing as I am not a modeler, only someone who learned how to use PartDesigner and had enough patience to do the painstaking work of aligning connections and making sure phantom collisions don't happen. So, in my introduction to this forum, I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

1. Are there any better alternatives to creating parts over PartDesigner? Namely, PartDesigner has issues when processing models of very high face counts, and it seems to attempt to apply some sort of geometry modifier on import, which when combined with what I presume to be similar modifiers passed upon starting a photorealistic render, results in models looking... iffy, to say the least.
   
2. Is there a relatively simple way for modelers in Blender, Fusion360, and other programs who are accustomed to making parts for 3d printing to apply primitives to things like axles, studs, and pin holes? A big problem when working with these models is the lack of consistency between the connection points of parts, so this would definitely be a huge step forward if a (relatively) painless solution exists.
   
3. Since a majority of our community uses Stud.io for building and rendering their Bionicle MOCs due to ease of use, is there anything you have learned about Stud.io that we may have not?
   

Thank you all, and I hope that I can learn more from everyone and start making a better, easier way for digital Bionicle designing!

[Philippe Hurbain]

1. Are there any better alternatives to creating parts over PartDesigner? Namely, PartDesigner has issues when processing models of very high face counts, and it seems to attempt to apply some sort of geometry modifier on import, which when combined with what I presume to be similar modifiers passed upon starting a photorealistic render, results in models looking... iffy, to say the least.
   
2. Is there a relatively simple way for modelers in Blender, Fusion360, and other programs who are accustomed to making parts for 3d printing to apply primitives to things like axles, studs, and pin holes? A big problem when working with these models is the lack of consistency between the connection points of parts, so this would definitely be a huge step forward if a (relatively) painless solution exists.
   
3. Since a majority of our community uses Stud.io for building and rendering their Bionicle MOCs due to ease of use, is there anything you have learned about Stud.io that we may have not?
   

1. Most of us use LDparteditor to create LDraw parts (https://nilsschmidt1337.github.io/ldparteditor/). Fair warning: powerful, but steep learning curve (and scarce documentation to say the best). Unfortunately you will still need PartDesigner to add connectivity/process collision...
   
2. Fredrik Hareide is working on such a tool (https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24153-po...l#pid45043). But that's a complex project, don't hold your breath
   
3. I do agree that Studio is great for rendering or creating building instructions, but for model building it's a big meeehhh for me... Especially for Technic building I prefer a lot LDCad. Caveats: "the best tool is the one you know how to use" and "doesn't solve the lack of Bionicle parts"!
   

[Max Murtazin]

Oh, hi Voot, long time no see
If you are going to work on Biopack parts, better contact me somehow, I am already up to dealing with some of that and making them into LDraw

[Violet Barrett]

1. Most of us use LDparteditor to create LDraw parts (https://nilsschmidt1337.github.io/ldparteditor/). Fair warning: powerful, but steep learning curve (and scarce documentation to say the best). Unfortunately you will still need PartDesigner to add connectivity/process collision...
   
2. Fredrik Hareide is working on such a tool (https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24153-po...l#pid45043). But that's a complex project, don't hold your breath
   
3. I do agree that Studio is great for rendering or creating building instructions, but for model building it's a big meeehhh for me... Especially for Technic building I prefer a lot LDCad. Caveats: "the best tool is the one you know how to use" and "doesn't solve the lack of Bionicle parts"!
   

1. I'll have a look at that! Part of the issue is that Bionicle parts, being as they are, are not exactly friendly to the types of processes designed to make bricks.
   
2. That's definitely going to be tricky to get people on board with, but I may be able to start bothering people about it! I'll definitely look into that, and see if I can start learning something about this.
   
3. Keep in mind that the average Bionicle digital MOCist is not the average Lego or Technic MOCist - there's a high need for easy building, posing, and rendering, which LDCad is not necessarily designed for. The usual user who does the kind of stuff that the Biopack is made for is not likely to use other LDraw programs, and if they do, it's more of a means to an end than anything else. 
   

Now, I have a few more questions for you! Hurray!

1. Is it possible to add new primitives without extending the LDraw spec? A number of Bionicle parts have a consistent attachment point - the stud for mask connections in the first few years - that differs from the usual stud connection. Could a primitive be added to a LDraw program that's not a part of the official spec and read properly, even if only in that program?
   
2. Are there any tools or recommendations to optimize .dat filesize in the meantime, without introducing primitives?
   

Max Murtazin



Oh, hi Voot, long time no see
If you are going to work on Biopack parts, better contact me somehow, I am already up to dealing with some of that and making them into LDraw

Well, I guess that depends on if you are who I think you are! I suppose you're back in the saddle? Either way... we'll see.

[Orion Pobursky]

1. I'll have a look at that! Part of the issue is that Bionicle parts, being as they are, are not exactly friendly to the types of processes designed to make bricks.
   
2. That's definitely going to be tricky to get people on board with, but I may be able to start bothering people about it! I'll definitely look into that, and see if I can start learning something about this.
   
3. Keep in mind that the average Bionicle digital MOCist is not the average Lego or Technic MOCist - there's a high need for easy building, posing, and rendering, which LDCad is not necessarily designed for. The usual user who does the kind of stuff that the Biopack is made for is not likely to use other LDraw programs, and if they do, it's more of a means to an end than anything else. 
   

If you are looking to get into authoring, there are quite a few Constraction/Bionicle parts on digital-bricks.de that haven't been processed for the library. Note that these pulls from LDD are quite rough and may require extensive editing to get to Library standards. You are right in that Constraction/Bionicle are are not easy to model, hence the conspicuous absences of these parts from the library.

1. Is it possible to add new primitives without extending the LDraw spec? A number of Bionicle parts have a consistent attachment point - the stud for mask connections in the first few years - that differs from the usual stud connection. Could a primitive be added to a LDraw program that's not a part of the official spec and read properly, even if only in that program?
   
2. Are there any tools or recommendations to optimize .dat filesize in the meantime, without introducing primitives?
   

For primitives, if you can make a case for a need, pretty much anything goes.
For optimization tools, have a look at DATHeader. It's the tool most of us use to combine triangles into quads.

[Violet Barrett]

If you are looking to get into authoring, there are quite a few Constraction/Bionicle parts on digital-bricks.de that haven't been processed for the library. Note that these pulls from LDD are quite rough and may require extensive editing to get to Library standards. You are right in that Constraction/Bionicle are are not easy to model, hence the conspicuous absences of these parts from the library.


For primitives, if you can make a case for a need, pretty much anything goes.
For optimization tools, have a look at DATHeader. It's the tool most of us use to combine triangles into quads.

The issue is the fact that a lot of high quality parts exist already, but having been traditionally 3d modeled, are not up to spec with LDraw. Is there a way to take these models and introduce primitives where connection points exist without remodeling the whole thing?

Also, I'll definitely want to raise a few questions regarding the next spec revision. Apologies if this is a stupid question, but where can I go to propose additions to the standard? I'm new to this forum, and having a bit of a tricky time navigating it!

[N. W. Perry]

Keep in mind that the average Bionicle digital MOCist is not the average Lego or Technic MOCist - there's a high need for easy building, posing, and rendering, which LDCad is not necessarily designed for. The usual user who does the kind of stuff that the Biopack is made for is not likely to use other LDraw programs, and if they do, it's more of a means to an end than anything else. 

Yes, Studio understandably appeals to designers and MOCers, especially those most accustomed to working in real plastic. It's a cool program and feels very accessible, yet powerful. However, it does have its limitations, and unfortunately, once you run up against those limitations, you tend to reach a hard stop on how far you can extend your modeling ability.

However, I would suggest that LDCad actually offers much easier building and posing, if not also rendering, than Studio does, simply because of its advanced capabilities. You have to get past the initial learning curve, sure, but in my experience, it's really not that much trickier to learn than Studio—just different, and a little quirky.

That's not so say that everyone should switch to LDCad; for some, Studio is perfectly sufficient. But for those whose models are so advanced as to exceed Studio's capability, then it's not such a big step to move into LDCad.

p.s.: LDCad is also not inaccessible to Mac users like me. It works flawlessly under Wine, and that's not too hard to set up.

[Max Murtazin]

The issue is the fact that a lot of high quality parts exist already, but having been traditionally 3d modeled, are not up to spec with LDraw. Is there a way to take these models and introduce primitives where connection points exist without remodeling the whole thing?

Also, I'll definitely want to raise a few questions regarding the next spec revision. Apologies if this is a stupid question, but where can I go to propose additions to the standard? I'm new to this forum, and having a bit of a tricky time navigating it!

1. Basically, you remove geometry of the connectivity points, and add primitives in place of them, it isn't too hard to do with good model on hands
2. Official File Specifications/Standards forum, can be found here: https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-32.html